Scope Neglect

Fortunately, there are many reasons to believe that we can take advantage of scope insensitivity because people have already discovered ways to make the most of other forms of non-extensibility. Scale neglect or scope insensitivity is a cognitive bias that occurs when an assessment of a problem is not assessed using a multiplicative relationship with its dimension. After all, if we didn’t neglect scale, we would be more rational and therefore perhaps happier and healthier, living in a world where everyone has more of what they want, because without scale insensitivity there would be no it’s so difficult to convince people to help those who are far away, who need more than those close to them, who need less. Here I will look at one such use case, namely the use of scope insensitivity to prepare for high-risk situations in low-risk situations. [Sources: 2, 3]

The more anxious, depressed, or generally frustrated you are, the more likely you are to treat low-stakes situations as high, and thus, you will have even more opportunities to practice judo numbness than people who are calmer and are fair. Indeed, studies of neglect of scale, in which the quantitative variation is large enough to elicit any sensitivity, show a small linear increase in willingness to pay, corresponding to an exponential increase in volume. When you notice any of these situations, consider if this is really a high rate or if you think it is simply due to the viewfinder’s insensitivity. Expansion neglect [a] is a type of cognitive error that occurs when sample size is ignored when evaluating a study in which the sample size is logically significant. [Sources: 2, 5, 6]

Two other hypotheses to explain domain neglect include purchase of moral gratification (Kahneman and Knutch, 1992) and just cause burial (Harrison, 1992). The most widely accepted explanation for scale neglect is the affect heuristic. This can cause their reaction to problems to be disproportionate to the size of the problem. [Sources: 4, 5]

Baron and Green (1996) found no effect of a tenfold change in the number of lives saved. Kahneman, Daniel, Barbara Fredrickson, Charles Schreiber and Don Redelmeier. Wilson, Thomas, Christopher Houston, Catherine Etling and Nancy Brecke. [Sources: 0, 5]


— Slimane Zouggari


##### Sources #####